Those who claim that they can’t make up their mind concerning the nature of free will are merely using the exercise as an intravenous drip to keep the illusion alive for a while longer.

This simply sounds like the platitude of someone who is getting off on their own illusion, that being that ‘they’ know better than all the other ‘fools’ out there who are living in ignorance. It’s a seductive one, but for someone who apparently professes to reject the ego it is entirely driven by ego.

For mine, as a self confessed agnostic regarding the ‘nature of free will’ my suspension of belief/disbelief is because I find compelling arguments on both sides of the fence, and I defer to a humble acceptance that cognitively we are merely evolved beasts, and may not, contrary to the hubris of some, even be capable of understanding “all the answers to the Universe.” It never ceases to surprise me how the most ardent supporters of evolution also seem to be the most (unstated) supporters of some kind of limitless cognitive capacity of the fleshy human brain to grasp and SOLVE all the mysteries of the universe.

The reason I am agnostic regarding free will is because the supposed ‘science’ that SOLVES the problem does no such thing, without an extra leap of logic and a dash of dogmatism, and the logical arguments against it (being chiefly the standard argument against free will) is unsatisfactory as a way of settling the argument once and for all (for me anyway).

In short, rather than jumping to loosely supported conclusions and professing a certitude as a way of feeding my sense of intellectual superiority, as a free will agnostic and a scientific sceptic I remain reserved on the question until further evidence is available. It is, for me, the most rational position.

Those who claim that they can’t make up their mind concerning the nature of free will are merely using the exercise as an intravenous drip to keep the illusion alive for a while longer.

This simply sounds like the platitude of someone who is getting off on their own illusion, that being that ‘they’ know better than all the other ‘fools’ out there who are living in ignorance. It’s a seductive one, but for someone who apparently professes to reject the ego it is entirely driven by ego.

For mine, as a self confessed agnostic regarding the ‘nature of free will’ my suspension of belief/disbelief is because I find compelling arguments on both sides of the fence, and I defer to a humble acceptance that cognitively we are merely evolved beasts, and may not, contrary to the hubris of some, even be capable of understanding “all the answers to the Universe.” It never ceases to surprise me how the most ardent supporters of evolution also seem to be the most (unstated) supporters of some kind of limitless cognitive capacity of the fleshy human brain to grasp and SOLVE all the mysteries of the universe.

The reason I am agnostic regarding free will is because the supposed ‘science’ that SOLVES the problem does no such thing, without an extra leap of logic and a dash of dogmatism, and the logical arguments against it (being chiefly the standard argument against free will) is unsatisfactory as a way of settling the argument once and for all (for me anyway).

In short, rather than jumping to loosely supported conclusions and professing a certitude as a way of feeding my sense of intellectual superiority, as a free will agnostic and a scientific sceptic I remain reserved on the question until further evidence is available. It is, for me, the most rational position.

You cling to the belief in free will because it is sensed that without it you have no actual reality.

You cling to the belief in free will because it is sensed that without it you have no actual reality.

That wouldn’t be a free will AGNOSTIC. Agnostic by definition is someone who suspends belief.

Secondly I just gave you a bunch of reasons for my stance. You merely made a bare assertion without providing any support for it whatsoever. If your aim truly is simply to come off as intellectually superior, you’re screwing it up.

You cling to the belief in free will because it is sensed that without it you have no actual reality.

That wouldn’t be a free will AGNOSTIC. Agnostic by definition is someone who suspends belief.

Secondly I just gave you a bunch of reasons for my stance. You merely made a bare assertion without providing any support for it whatsoever. If your aim truly is simply to come off as intellectually superior, you’re screwing it up.

You cling to the belief in free will because it is sensed that without it you have no actual reality.

That wouldn’t be a free will AGNOSTIC. Agnostic by definition is someone who suspends belief.

Secondly I just gave you a bunch of reasons for my stance. You merely made a bare assertion without providing any support for it whatsoever. If your aim truly is simply to come off as intellectually superior, you’re screwing it up.

A lot of very smart people believe in God.

You have given no reason to believe in free will other then it just feels like you have it

You have given no reason to believe in free will other then it just feels like you have it

You’re not getting it are you? A ‘free will agnostic’, by definition doesn’t believe in free will. They suspend belief on the question because they don’t believe there’s enough evidence either way. So what are you talking about?

I didn’t give any reasons at all to believe in free will…not even “it just feels like you have it.’ You’re debating yourself here mate, and making a fool of yourself while you do it. Perhaps a little less ‘certainty’ and a little more humility will help you avoid embarrassment.

Toombaru, you’re the dogmatic one. Most of us are open to new scientific findings. This is not solved issue. Neuroscience is new. We all agree that the traditional definition of ‘free will’ is outdated and probably inaccurate. There is no need to jump on a band wagon just yet. Nobody is arguing here that ‘free will’ is a fact and that we have it. I personally think Sam is just too sure when other scientists aren’t as quick to draw the same conclusions.

Toombaru, you the dogmatic one. Most of us our open to the new scientific findings. This is not solved issue. Neuroscience is new. We all agree that the traditional definition of ‘free will’ is outdated and probably inaccurate. There is no need to jump on a band wagon just yet. Nobody is arguing here that ‘free will’ is a fact and that we have it. I personally think Sam is just too sure when other scientists aren’t as quick to draw the same conclusions.

All selves are entirely composed of dogma.
The one responding to your post is no different.
Most people are open to new ideas, as long as they coincide with their own preconceived conceptual blueprint of the world.
You continue to cling to the possibility that there exists a free will in the universe in the same way religious agnostics keep the door open for a creator god just in case…....
You seek to assuage the fear of helplessness in a frightening world and the mirage of free will is just to difficult to give up.
There is no person to have free will.
The person IS the blue print.
And it will waver on issues like free will until it doesn’t.
It cannot see its own essential emptiness.
It senses that without free will, it is out of a job.
And it is right.
It will act as if it were seeking the ultimate truth but it is really hiding from that which would destroy its illusory kingdom.
Keep looking.
Keep searching.
Keep cutting the distance in half.
Wait for new research to prove what you already believe.
Wait for another identified persona to combine concepts into a convincing document.
Keep hoping that all those stems and seeds will transform themselves into a living plant.
But I am telling you that you search for proof of something that doesn’t even exist.
I am telling you that there isn’t even a you that is in charge of the search.
At this point in your journey, no amount of proof will convince you.
You are programmed to survive and will see only those things that bolster your sense of self.
Trying to validate free will is like spending one’s life trying to find convincing proof of God.
Watch that mind that you imagine to be who you are try to defend its self from these corrosive ideas.
Watch as it tries to fortify its little shelter in the storm.
Watch the fingers as they pound out a response.
Watch it roar: ! AM AAAAAALIVE!)

Wow, you’re long-winded poetry. So I expect you to announce very soon that you are the messiah on this very board. You don’t seem to be gaining cult following here. You should hook up with Oprah. She’ll make you a star!

Wow, you’re long-winded poetry. So I expect you to announce very soon that you are the messiah on this very board. You don’t seem to be gaining cult following here. You should hook up with Oprah. She’ll make you a star!

I disagree with your implying that there’s any messiah complex here. Toombaru tells it like it is, and he/she always seems to provide some great insight.

Wow, you’re long-winded poetry. So I expect you to announce very soon that you are the messiah on this very board. You don’t seem to be gaining cult following here. You should hook up with Oprah. She’ll make you a star!

Here the sense of I am is seen as the little messiah.,.......the second coming.
It actually believes its self to be the ruler of its own tiny kingdom.
Since I don’t consider psychological entities anything but mnemonic holograms, the thought of a bunch of them following me around kinda freaks me out.
A zombie video game comes to mind.

I disagree with your implying that there’s any messiah complex here. Toombaru tells it like it is, and he/she always seems to provide some great insight.

>> Yeah, sure. Trying to be scientific while talking in poetic, mystical, massively long-winded parables. Okay, I wonder if you said that with a straight face. We already have one Deepak. And this isn’t an insult to anybody here, but nobody here on any board, anywhere for that matter ‘tells it like it is.’ That’s the job of messiahs. Can’t we just be humble and exchange ideas? Nobody here has THE answer.